Today, George W. Bush told Matt Lauer on Today that the "War on Terror" cannot be won.

Actually, he said "I don't think you can win it". Here's the exact transcript:

Not being able to win this "war" is a new position for Bush who has said over and over that "we will win" it.

As recently as July 30th of this year he said in Springfield, MO., "We have a clear vision on how to win the war on terror and bring peace to the world."

And yet that's not what he said on the bush to Matt. So the rest of the day Team Bush went apoplectic contorting to explain that Bush didn't really mean we couldn't win the war on terror...he was...referring to something else. To not being able to win, because there is nobody available to sign a surrender document. But other than that, we'll win. Or something.

They said a lot. They apologized a lot. They spun and danced and twisted and flip-flopped. Even McCain and Guiliani had to change their speeches to try and make sense of the torturued logic and apparent lack of clarity from the "Commander-in-Chief" they tell us should be re-"elected" due to his "clarity of vision". Or something.

Much was said. I'll let you go and figure out how they're now trying to spin it. Spinning is what they do well.

The statement (and I not only read it, but saw it several times) seemed very clear to me, but the Bushies say it wasn't. Bottom line: Apparently, it all depends on what the meaning of "it" is.

Go figure.

Tonight, Rudy Guiliani successfully began his run for the White House.

It was an ignominious, though perhaps effective, start for him. It's a shame he had to start by making stuff up outta the box.

Guiliani said (quoting from his prepared text here, he may have changed the wording slightly when he said it), "Since September 11th President Bush has remained rock solid. It doesn't matter how he is demonized. It doesn't matter what the media does to ridicule him or misinterpret him or defeat him."

First, I welcome any of the Right Wingers here to demonstrate precisely when or where "the media" has "misinterpreted" George W. Bush. Please feel free to point us towards one of those "misinterpretations" here in Comments. Be specific. It shouldn't be hard, right? With such a "Liberal" media after all!

Hopefully, you'll show us a misinterpretation akin to the way Dick Cheney and the rest of the Foot Soldiers misinterpreted Kerry's "sensitive war" comments. If you do, I'll join you in condemning anything that appalling.

But speaking of "misinterpreting" folks, Rudy cynically then went on to "ridicule and misinterpret" John Kerry by saying, "My point about John Kerry being inconsistent is best described in his own words when he said, 'I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.'"

Anyone who bothered to pay attention (that would not include you Fake Conservatives, of course) knows that Kerry voted for the 87 billion when the bill included a responsible amendment that specified how the 87 billion would be paid for. That's something that honest conservatives (not Fake Conservatives) would appreciate. He voted against the bill when it was to be paid for by future borrowing on the national debt.

In case you Fake Conservatives haven't noticed, America now carries the Greatest Debt in the History of the World as created by George W. Bush for the Biggest Federal Government ever known to Mankind, also courtesy of George W. Bush and a Republican House and Senate.

John Kerry, on the other hand, supports "Pay as You Go". In other words, if it can't be paid for, he won't propose it. Something that an intellectually honest Republican should be in favor of. Or at least demanding from your own Tax Cut and Spend party.

But anyway, like Rudy Guiliani who supports Adultery, Abortion Rights, Gay Rights, endorsed Democrat Mario Cuomo for Governor and is largely more of a Democrat than a Republican, Fake Conservatives --- and presumably the Republican Party that supports them --- are more interested, in politics and power than in standing for anything.

The important note from tonight though; Rudy earned his '04 and/or '08 endorsement for President of the United States. If you Republicans (and us non-Republicans) are lucky, you may get him for your nominee. Though you Fake Conservatives are gonna have to keep flip-flopping to support him.

No biggie. You're used to it.

I know it doesn't exactly account for whether John Kerry was actually in Cambodia on Christmas Eve or a few days later, but if you've haven't noticed, there is still a war going on...

According to this week's McGlaughlin Group:

Now back to your regularly scheduled distraction from the issues.

Drudge reports selected quotes from a new Bush interview in Time. Among them:

Of course you could have. That's your j-o-b. You're the "President"! You are precisely supposed to look at all such possibilities. It's called "Leadership" and "Judgement". You know, those things you are running on and trying to trick folks into believing that you actually have!

And if you "couldn't" have imagined such a thing, perhaps had your read your own father's own book, you might have had a hint! Look what your Dad said, Junior!:

"Trying to eliminate Saddam ... would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. ... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. ... [T]here was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see... Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

To quote you, Mr. "President" --- "Is our children learning"?

Apparently they isn't.

Back to Drudge/Time/Dubya:

Is it just me, or didn't Dubya work for his Dad in Washington when he was Veep for 8 years, and then President for 4? And yet, Dubya just "learned" this about Washington? He couldn't have "envisioned" it?!

Who does he want us to think he is, Gomer Pyle who just flew inta D.C. for the first time!?

Sorry, Mr. Smith, we ain't buyin' it. Unless, for some reason, you simply forgot everything that happened to you during the years of 1980 - 1992 for some reason. Which is it Mr. "President"? Are you lying? Do you think we're stupid? Or were you drunk for 12 years?

Or is it all of the above?

Bush/Cheney '04: You're dumber than us!

Thanks to the BRAD BLOG's three fine Guest Bloggers, Johnhp, Jaime and Bryan for keeping things lively around here for the last few weeks when I've been galavanting about the beautiful Pacific Northwest!

But hey, we've got a country (and world) to save now, eh? Thanks to all the BRAD BLOGGERS, even the confused and desperate Right Wingers for your support.

(Blogged by Brad from Northern California...)

If you're not already registered to vote where you live, click here to do so right away!

In some states, there's a 60 day advance deadline quickly coming up!

There is also a "Register to Vote Here" link on the right side of all BRAD BLOG pages to use any time! Get it done! Now!

(Blogged by Brad on the road...)

No doubt you've already heard of Swiftie John O'Neill being hoisted on his own petard, on tape, in Nixon's oval office telling Tricky Dick that he was "in Cambodia". Such a thing was to have been impossible according to O'Neill in his own book of dirty tricks known as "Unfit for Command".

You've also heard that O'Neill claimed not to be a Republican, and not to have been involved in politics for 30 years. Both lies quickly illuminated to the contrary as it was revealed that O'Neill has given some $15,000 to Republican campaigns over the last decade, and worked for Nixon, Rehnquist and other "not Republicans" during that time.

As well, Guest Blogger Jaime was quick to report here on Co-Author Jerome Corsi's habit of referring to the Democratic Nominee for President as "John Fucking Commie Kerry", Hilary "the fat pig" Clinton and other "ragheads" on various internet hate sites like FreeRepublic.com.

The lies and dirty tricks of these guys go on and on.

So it's probably not a suprise to see a story such as "And Yet Another Anti-Kerry Swift Boat Vet Caught Lying" revealing yet another of the "Swifties for Truth" as being...um...less than truthful by having sworn to an affadavit which he now admits contains only information that relied "on the account of war buddies, not what he witnessed" and that he himself lied about an extra-marital affair with a colleague.

And now I've learned that Regenry, who published "Unfit for Command" after most reputable publishers turned it down, pushes a White Supremacy Agenda! Yet for some reason, I'm still not surprised:

And if Bush wins in November, who will he have to thank for that now that this book and those ads and this nonsense has finally helped turn around a few of his polls?

(Blogged by Brad from the road...though I'll be home soon!)

(Blogged by Brad from the road...)

If you only listen to Talk Radio (and occassionally catch a snippet of Fox News), you'd think the fact that the Bush campaign has finally found their very own "Willie Horton" distraction (Swifties for Bush) is the only news worth reporting.

I've been away from newspapers and other sources of real news for a while, so imagine my surprise when I learned there actually were newsworthy items, that have to do with Americans today, but that seem to be getting little coverage from the Rightwing Extremist Media.

Thursday's USA Today was kind enough to summarize the latest report on the horrors of Abu Ghraib. You recall that place, right? The place where the America managed to create thousands of new terrorists?

It looks like at least 30 more Americans, above and beyond the 7 "bad apples", have now been implicated. And even Don Rumsfeld has been taken to task. And mind you, this is a report by the Army investigating itself. So you can imagine how horrific and far reaching the real story actually is.

I have a feeling this story, below the fold in Thursday's USA Today didn't get the coverage that it might have had only John Kerry not been such a dangerous, lying, evil, traitorous, Communist, America hater.

So, here's a few items from the report that actually matter and that you may have missed:

Okay. Now go back to fighting over whether it was shrapnel or bullets that punctured the flesh of John Kerry 35 years ago while he volunteered to risk his life for our country.

Bush/Cheney '04: Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

(Blogged by Brad from the road...)

Not sure if last night's show was a repeat or not, I've missed quite a few while being on the road, but the interview with Bill Clinton (following the one with John Kerry a few days before) was quite a coup for the basic cable, low rent comedy show.

None the less, The Daily Show continues to offer the best coverage of Election '04 available believe it or not. So it's little wonder that so many are now getting the bulk of their news from it, according to a Pew poll released last week.

Surely Daily Show viewers are at least as informed about what the hell is going out on out there as Fox News watchers. And undoubtedly, more so.

Last night, Stephen Colbert's interview with "The Democratic Party" was a stitch. My quick search of The Daily's website didn't turn up the video. So if anyone has a link to it, please post it in comments. (I believe the show will re-run today at 7pm, otherwise).

And while you're there, Rob Corddry's "Don't Mess With Texas" piece was also a hoot. I was able to find the video for that one. Enjoy!

(Blogged on the road by Brad...)

Blowing back in a southerly trajectory towards L.A., I came across a review of OutFoxed in the Eugene Weekly I picked up at the motel. I never got around to posting a full "review" of the excellent documentary here. Now that it's making the unheard of jump from DVD to Theater-Near-You, I oughta get around to it.

But not for the moment. Instead, a quick thought on Lois Wadsworth's review in the Weekly. She pegs Fox News' Carl Cameron as a "bootlicker" in regards to the ass-kissing he's overseen committing with Dubya on the "feed" prior to his "Fox News Exclusive" with Bush during the 2000 campaign (Cameron's wife worked for the Bush Campaign at the time, no conflict apparently for Fox's "Chief Political Correspondent").

Imagine that.

(Another, carbon-based way to learn more about the unravelling of real "fair and balance" on the people's airwaves is The Control Room : How Television Calls the Shots in Presidential Elections, a book by Martin Plissner. It's an excellent pre-2000 examination of the breakdown of the "equal time rules" on television, and how the structure of today's Presidential Elections in America are virtually 100% the product of the News Media.)

And, of course, you can still purchase the OutFoxed DVD for $9.95 online if the film is not playing near you. Or you'd just like to have a copy to pass around to those "Fox Fans" who may need a reality check.

One other point that I'd been meaning to discuss since watching the film, is the study they document showing that people who watch Fox News regularly are far less informed than those who get their news from other sources. The study shows that Fox News viewers get an inordinate amount of simple, fact-based questions --- like, "Was Saddam Hussein responsible for 9/11?" or "Did we find WMD in Iraq?" --- completely wrong.

That survey synchs up with one a few years back (I believe it was a Pew study, can't look it up from the road for now) showing that while Rush Limbaugh listeners thought they were the most informed, it turned out that they were instead amongst the least informed of those who followed current events.

Makes sense. At this point, to be a Bush supporter, one would have to be either uninformed or misinformed. And that's exactly what Fox News, Rush and Team Bush are all counting on.